McClarty v. Totem Electric, decided July 6, 2006

For many years the definition of “disability” under the Washington Law Against Discrimination has been much broader than the disability definition under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. This has meant that Washington courts have found employees’ temporary conditions and minor abnormalities to be “disabilities” even though they would not have been disabilities under the ADA.

The Washington Supreme Court has now changed all this. In McClarty v. Totem Electric, the employee was an apprentice electrician who experienced wrist pain after three months on the job and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. When McClarty advised the employer of his condition and requested lighter duty, the employer terminated him, citing “reduction in work forces/lay-off.” McClarty sued, claiming disability discrimination under Washington law.

In finding for the employer, the Supreme Court rejected Washington’s administrative definition of “disability” which deems a person “disabled” by an abnormal sensory, mental or physical condition if he is discriminated against because of that condition. Finding that this definition could extend to conditions like receding hairlines, which would “trivialize the discrimination suffered by persons with disabilities,” the Supreme Court adopted the ADA definition of disability for all cases arising under Washington discrimination law.

After McClarty, an employee bringing a disability discrimination suit under Washington law must establish that she has (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities, (2) a record of such impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such impairment. The Supreme Court further noted that decisions under the ADA will guide future Washington decisions. In that regard, the United States Supreme Court has held that “substantially limited” means “unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” and that “major life activities” are those activities that are of central importance to daily life.” This case raises the burden for an employee claiming a disability. It both narrows Washington’s previous broad definition of disability and creates a single definition of disability for both disparate treatment and failure to accommodate claims. The Supreme Court’s approval of ADA cases will provide employers and their attorneys with more case law resources for analyzing an employee’s claimed disability under Washington law.

In light of McClarty, Eisenhower’s employment lawyers are now able to give employers more detailed advice concerning the appropriate response to disability claims. If you have any questions concerning an employee’s claimed disability, please do not hesitate to call Eisenhower’s Labor and Employment Group.

Jim Hushagen
jhushagen@eisenhowerlaw.com